i think maybe mechanism was not the best word, what i was trying to convey was a hard thing to say. i meant like, why it must be.
math is all very nice. but math is not enough. it is not a proper explanation.
for example, we could plot 4 dimensional equations in a 2d altitude map kind of...
no offense, but you may as well have said: because i said so. Which will never be satisfactory for me, even if it is einstein that said so.
i mean, not that i doubt einstein is correct, but i want to know why he must be correct. why it is necessary for it to be that way.
i mean, i realize...
i see. thx, but by what mechanism does this relationship exist? meaning, what is it in the real world is this formula explaining, or, where does it come from?
this is how i see that one.
in order to measure something correctly, you need two points of reference. you need this because this is how you create units.
for celcius, they took freezing point and boiling point of water at 1 atm, and split that into 100, i wish they would have split it...
if you have 2 spaceships and they depart in exactly the opposite direction from a starting point, say a space station, and they accelerate to speeds nearing the speed of light, then what is the relative speed of each spaceship, using one of them as a reference frame.
it would seem to me...
ooooh ok, i get it. that makes sense. then, what's the word i should be using to mean what i mean then? 'the warping of the passage of time one frame relative to another'
yes, right, i am not saying differently.
you could then say, that time dilation, is that all the rest of the universe's time increases by the same ratio.
my point is that i would say that seeing the universe outside of you speed up, would be indeed seeing time dilation. your time has...
i feel like you're just confusing things. i mean, when i look out the window and see trees flying past me, i can deduce that i am moving forward, and i can look at the window and say, look, i am moving forward, even though the trees are moving in the opposite direction. this is because by my...
you are in a train. the train slows down, you look outside, notice the outside world slowing down in the direction opposite of the train's movement, and you exclaim, "look! the train is slowing down!" and then the guy next to you says: "ummm you can't see the train slowing down by looking out...
if you are wondering which questions i was referring to in earlier post, it was these.
you did explain time dilatation part, but i think that was a semantics thing, and you didn't respond to my train analogy explaining what i had meant, by observing time dilatation.
i don't want to come off...
I will continue to reject any idea you put forth until it is proven to me, and explained to me in a way that it makes sense to me, and in a way that it seems to me that it must be.
i am not rejecting any of your ideas because i think they are wrong, i mean, i think they are wrong, otherwise i...
well, i would consider that semantics, that's like saying that if I'm looking out the window of a train, and i say, look the train is slowing down. and you say, well you can't see the train slowing down, that's the trees slowing down. i mean, it's nearly the same thing, except in the dilatation...
ya.. but light does.
it's almost kind of predictable that would be the case, and yet, an interesting thought.
and predictably i guess again, as v→-c it goes to infinity.
here's a related question. how do we know whether or not there's a bunch of stuff in outer space that's moving...